2nd amendment V private comapny

[vidcc]

story (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6223)

A question to pro 2nd amendment US citizens:

Do you think it is unreasonable for a company to have a policy prohibiting guns on it's premises?.
The NRA is organising a boycott of ConocoPhillips after an employee was dismissed for breaking company policy by having legally owned guns in their cars in the company car park.

I am not keen on the gun culture as it stands and think the original intention of the 2nd amendment has been "pushed to the limits", but I do not wish to ban gun ownership.
I do strongly believe though that people have the right to not allow guns on their property and if one disagrees with a company policy like this then don't work for that company or park off premises.
ConocoPhillips are not trying to stop their employees owning guns so I am at a loss as to the argument the NRA is making.

[RPerry]

story (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6223)

A question to pro 2nd amendment US citizens:

Do you think it is unreasonable for a company to have a policy prohibiting guns on it's premises?.
The NRA is organising a boycott of ConocoPhillips after an employee was dismissed for breaking company policy by having legally owned guns in their cars in the company car park.

I am not keen on the gun culture as it stands and think the original intention of the 2nd amendment has been "pushed to the limits", but I do not wish to ban gun ownership.
I do strongly believe though that people have the right to not allow guns on their property and if one disagrees with a company policy like this then don't work for that company or park off premises.
ConocoPhillips are not trying to stop their employees owning guns so I am at a loss as to the argument the NRA is making.

I have no problems with any company not wanting firearms on their property. I can see the danger, especially when it comes to "disgruntled employees" Having been in the position of having to terminate someones employment, firearms don't belong there at all. I agree with you though, I think this is a step overboard by the NRA :huh:

[JPaul]

story (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6223)

A question to pro 2nd amendment US citizens:

Does that mean just US citizens can post here.

Or can anyone join in.

[GepperRankins]

i suppose a paranoid loony should be allowed to leave it in their car for the journey to and from home justincase they get hijacked

[JPaul]

That seems to be open forum then.

If the gun is legal then how have they the right to sack someone for having it in his car, even if it is their car park.

Just because they have a policy does not mean that the policy is fair and reasonable. One assumes he is claiming unfair dismissal.

[vidcc]

I have no problems with any company not wanting firearms on their property. I can see the danger, especially when it comes to "disgruntled employees" Having been in the position of having to terminate someones employment, firearms don't belong there at all. I agree with you though, I think this is a step overboard by the NRA :huh:
I tend to think that your exact reasoning is why some people are dismissed by "impersonal" methods such as E.mail or telephone followed by an official letter instead of calling them into the office and explaining why.
There is a right to carry arms but there are also right places to have them and the company was clear on this.
I do agree that any private citizen has the right to not patronise any company, I just feel that this reason just exposes the NRA as being an extremist group than a common sense group.
I may make a point of filling up at their stations from now on.

[Rat Faced]

Many Government Departments or "Outsourcers" in the USA, especially in the USA have similar policies with regard to camera's or mobile phones with camera's. If caught with one on government/company property, its a sacking offence with no appeal. Just ask Mathea :(

If he knew the policy, then he can have no complaint about about it.

They werent trying to stop him having a gun... just not bring one onto their land. I would have thought that most employers would have similar policies due to Health and Safety legislations.. If someone did go nuts, they'd be sued, im sure.

[Snee]

i suppose a paranoid loony should be allowed to leave it in their car for the journey to and from home justincase they get hijacked
They can hide it outside the parking lot, like. In secret. Maybe a few extra guns, just to be sure.


It's about firearms tho', so swords are ok, right? :unsure:

[JPaul]

So how can you justify sacking someone for doing something which is (presumably) perfectly legal.

If they ban biscuits on their land and someone has some in his car is that also a sacking offence.

Nah, that makes no sense.

[Busyman]

So how can you justify sacking someone for doing something which is (presumably) perfectly legal.

If they ban biscuits on their land and someone has some in his car is that also a sacking offence.

Nah, that makes no sense.
If it's part of the code of conduct or whatever the company calls it, then yes.

You abide the companies rules for employement.

I cannot work for another telephone company or do any business that my company does or I'm fired.

Companies are justified in barring weapons or cameras on their property.

There isn't a distinction between the parking lot and the office. It's company property.

So if guns are NOT banned on their parking lot, then they aren't in the office and the fella is free to bring guns into his and other's cubicles.

[JPaul]

So how can you justify sacking someone for doing something which is (presumably) perfectly legal.

If they ban biscuits on their land and someone has some in his car is that also a sacking offence.

Nah, that makes no sense.
If it's part of the code of conduct or whatever the company calls it, then yes.

You abide the companies rules for employement.

I cannot work for another telephone company or do any business that my company does or I'm fired.

Companies are justified in barring weapons or cameras on their property.

There isn't a distinction between the parking lot and the office. It's company property.

So if guns are NOT banned on their parking lot, then they aren't in the office and the fella is free to bring guns into his and other's cubicles.


So if they ban biscuits then "possession of a biscuit" is a sackable offence.

Kewl employment legislation you have there.

[GepperRankins]

If it's part of the code of conduct or whatever the company calls it, then yes.

You abide the companies rules for employement.

I cannot work for another telephone company or do any business that my company does or I'm fired.

Companies are justified in barring weapons or cameras on their property.

There isn't a distinction between the parking lot and the office. It's company property.

So if guns are NOT banned on their parking lot, then they aren't in the office and the fella is free to bring guns into his and other's cubicles.


So if they ban biscuits then "possession of a biscuit" is a sackable offence.

Kewl employment legislation you have there.
sorry to agree with busyman, but yeah. if it's in the rules, it is

[Busyman]

If it's part of the code of conduct or whatever the company calls it, then yes.

You abide the companies rules for employement.

I cannot work for another telephone company or do any business that my company does or I'm fired.

Companies are justified in barring weapons or cameras on their property.

There isn't a distinction between the parking lot and the office. It's company property.

So if guns are NOT banned on their parking lot, then they aren't in the office and the fella is free to bring guns into his and other's cubicles.


So if they ban biscuits then "possession of a biscuit" is a sackable offence.

Kewl employment legislation you have there.
Nahh that's what unions are good for.

Alcohol is perfectly legal yet I can't take swig at work or have it on the property.

[JPaul]

So if they ban biscuits then "possession of a biscuit" is a sackable offence.

Kewl employment legislation you have there.
sorry to agree with busyman, but yeah. if it's in the rules, it is
So if it's a rule it must be right, sorry I never knew that.

[JPaul]

So if they ban biscuits then "possession of a biscuit" is a sackable offence.

Kewl employment legislation you have there.
Nahh that's what unions are good for.

Alcohol is perfectly legal yet I can't take swig at work or have it on the property.
Drinking alcohol has a detremental effect on your ability to do your job = Having a legal weapon in your car, in the car park, has a detremental effect on your ability to do your job.

How does that work.

[Busyman]

Nahh that's what unions are good for.

Alcohol is perfectly legal yet I can't take swig at work or have it on the property.
Drinking alcohol has a detremental effect on your ability to do your job = Having a legal weapon in your car, in the car park, has a detremental effect on your ability to do your job.

So do painkillers. Your point?

Alcohol can have a detrimental effect on me doing my job.

[JPaul]

Drinking alcohol has a detremental effect on your ability to do your job = Having a legal weapon in your car, in the car park, has a detremental effect on your ability to do your job.

So do painkillers. Your point?

Alcohol can have a detrimental effect on me doing my job.
A gun, in a car, in a car park, can't, your point.

[Busyman]

So do painkillers. Your point?

Alcohol can have a detrimental effect on me doing my job.
A gun, in a car, in a car park, can't, your point.
Of course it can. Especially since in Oklahoma, to legally have it in your car, it must be in plain sight (not unless that's changed recently). Break-ins, break-ins.

Also a company should not be responsible for whether a person legally has a gun or not.

[JPaul]

A gun, in a car, in a car park, can't, your point.
Of course it can. Especially since in Oklahoma, to legally have it in your car, it must be in plain sight (not unless that's changed recently). Break-ins, break-ins.

Also a company should not be responsible for whether a person legally has a gun or not.
If it's legal to own a gun then what's the difference between that and a biscuit.

Or can't you leave biscuits in your car either.

[Busyman]

Of course it can. Especially since in Oklahoma, to legally have it in your car, it must be in plain sight (not unless that's changed recently). Break-ins, break-ins.

Also a company should not be responsible for whether a person legally has a gun or not.
If it's legal to own a gun then what's the difference between that and a biscuit.

Or can't you leave biscuits in your car either.
Guns are weapons, biscuits are not...unless I made them.

Legal weapons are still classified as weapons. Many companies prohibit weapons on their property.

[GepperRankins]

if i had a job and the rules said no biscuits. i wouldn't take in biscuits. i don't need them. i'm not gonna complain about my human rights or civil liberties if it's their private preference and i don't have to work for them. if i get sacked for it, it's my own stupid fault. if i was a bit crazy and wanted to take a gun into work where i wasn't allowed one. i wouldn't take it, because i don't need it and it's against the rules

[JPaul]

If it's legal to own a gun then what's the difference between that and a biscuit.

Or can't you leave biscuits in your car either.
Guns are weapons, biscuits are not...unless I made them.

Legal weapons are still classified as weapons. Many companies prohibit weapons on their property.

So companies can make prohibitions re items, so long as they are considered weapons, but not biscuits.

What about an umbrella, can they sack you for having one in your car, in their car park.

[Busyman]

I can't wear shorts or muscle shirts at work. :(

[Busyman]

Guns are weapons, biscuits are not...unless I made them.

Legal weapons are still classified as weapons. Many companies prohibit weapons on their property.

So companies can make prohibitions re items, so long as they are considered weapons, but not biscuits.

What about an umbrella, can they sack you for having one in your car, in their car park.
No not to my knowledge.

To add to this fiasco, the fella knew what company policy was and broke the rule anyway.

Wanna do away with a rule, fight to have it changed.

There different rules in my company than when I started well over a decade ago. Some of folks that broke the rules back then would probably still have their job by today's rules and vice-versa.

[JPaul]

if i had a job and the rules said no biscuits. i wouldn't take in biscuits. i don't need them. i'm not gonna complain about my human rights or civil liberties if it's their private preference and i don't have to work for them. if i get sacked for it, it's my own stupid fault. if i was a bit crazy and wanted to take a gun into work where i wasn't allowed one. i wouldn't take it, because i don't need it and it's against the rules
What if they banned the word "The", would you not use it.

Human rights be damned, the employer's word is law.

No wait, shit loads of people went thro' serious hard times to stop that kind of servile thinking. At least they did where I come from.

http://www.sfu.ca/~rptoews/hardie.jpg

[JPaul]

So companies can make prohibitions re items, so long as they are considered weapons, but not biscuits.

What about an umbrella, can they sack you for having one in your car, in their car park.
No not to my knowledge.

To add to this fiasco, the fella knew what company policy was and broke the rule anyway.

Wanna do away with a rule, fight to have it changed.

There different rules in my company than when I started well over a decade ago. Some of folks that broke the rules back then would probably still have their job by today's rules and vice-versa.


So what if company policy is "no umbrellas on company property".

[Busyman]

if i had a job and the rules said no biscuits. i wouldn't take in biscuits. i don't need them. i'm not gonna complain about my human rights or civil liberties if it's their private preference and i don't have to work for them. if i get sacked for it, it's my own stupid fault. if i was a bit crazy and wanted to take a gun into work where i wasn't allowed one. i wouldn't take it, because i don't need it and it's against the rules
What if they banned the word "The", would you not use it.

Human rights be damned, the employer's word is law.

No wait, shit loads of people went thro' serious hard times to stop that kind of servile thinking. At least they did where I come from.

http://www.sfu.ca/~rptoews/hardie.jpg
Over here, that's why unions exist.

Our unions wouldn't get far if they shitfit over things like carrying a gun and companies wouldn't if they harped on the word "the".

In absence of unions, your only recourse is the court.

[Busyman]

No not to my knowledge.

To add to this fiasco, the fella knew what company policy was and broke the rule anyway.

Wanna do away with a rule, fight to have it changed.

There different rules in my company than when I started well over a decade ago. Some of folks that broke the rules back then would probably still have their job by today's rules and vice-versa.


So what if company policy is "no umbrellas on company property".
Go to court. The umbrella is not classified as a weapon. It's primary purpose is to keep rain off of you when......uh...going to parking lot from the office and vice-versa.

[GepperRankins]

if i had a job and the rules said no biscuits. i wouldn't take in biscuits. i don't need them. i'm not gonna complain about my human rights or civil liberties if it's their private preference and i don't have to work for them. if i get sacked for it, it's my own stupid fault. if i was a bit crazy and wanted to take a gun into work where i wasn't allowed one. i wouldn't take it, because i don't need it and it's against the rules
What if they banned the word "The", would you not use it.

Human rights be damned, the employer's word is law.

No wait, shit loads of people went thro' serious hard times to stop that kind of servile thinking. At least they did where I come from.

http://www.sfu.ca/~rptoews/hardie.jpg
http://image.basspro.com/images/images2/82000/82242.jpg


you gotta be

[JPaul]

Over here, that's why unions exist.

Our unions wouldn't get far if they shitfit over things carrying a gun and companies wouldn't if they harped on the word "the".
To be fair, I have no idea what that means.

I suspect you have the same sensation re the concept of abstraction.

What if a company banned red socks, would that be OK.

[JPaul]

What if they banned the word "The", would you not use it.

Human rights be damned, the employer's word is law.

No wait, shit loads of people went thro' serious hard times to stop that kind of servile thinking. At least they did where I come from.

http://www.sfu.ca/~rptoews/hardie.jpg
http://image.basspro.com/images/images2/82000/82242.jpg


you gotta be

A pathetic use of the rod to attempt a rod.

V Poor.

[GepperRankins]

What if a company banned red socks, would that be OK.

yes.

a companys rules are rules. they don't even need a reason. unless it's a personal thing. like banning the name David, it's fair

[JPaul]

What if a company banned red socks, would that be OK.

yes. wrong

a companys rules are rules. wrong they don't even need a reason.wrong unless it's a personal thing. like banning the name David, it's fair wrong

Today's winner in the being wrong competition.

We gave that type of thinkng up decades ago. Why were you not informed.

[GepperRankins]

STFU n00b :lol:


i'm leaving :dry:

[Busyman]

Over here, that's why unions exist.

Our unions wouldn't get far if they shitfit over things carrying a gun and companies wouldn't if they harped on the word "the".
To be fair, I have no idea what that means.

I suspect you have the same sensation re the concept of abstraction.

What if a company banned red socks, would that be OK.
It means the negotiations between the union and the company would go to shit.

Regarding socks, yes if there is a dress code that prohibits it. Personally it would suck.....to wear red socks. Again everything comes down to what's negotiated and agreed upon.

Red underwear would have been a better example since it is pretty much sight unseen JP. :dry:

[JPaul]

Regarding socks, yes if there is a dress code that prohibits it.
What if it's a black face.

[GepperRankins]

Regarding socks, yes if there is a dress code that prohibits it.
What if it's a black face.
that's racist and the victim can't do anything about it.

[Busyman]

Regarding socks, yes if there is a dress code that prohibits it.
What if it's a black face.
A black face is not an article of clothing unless it's a mask.

Just don't wear the mask to work.

Otherwise it's against the law......and one should bleach their face white or any other color.
Tbh, most folk don't have black faces. I have a caramel complexion.

[JPaul]

What if it's a black face.
that's racist and the victim can't do anything about it.
So you can't abstract either, OK. (Which specific race is black of face, btw and why is it racist to mention the colour of their face.)

Let's keep it simple then. If we have to work on a basic level.

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid it's employees to bear arms.

[JPaul]

What if it's a black face.
A black face is not an article of clothing unless it's a mask.

Just don't wear the mask to work.

Otherwise it's against the law......and one's bleach their face white or any other color.
Tbh, most folk don't have black faces. I have a caramel complexion.
Just don't wear the red socks, let your boss tell you what do, even if it has nowt to do with doing your job.

Like having a gun in your car.

[GepperRankins]

it's a self given right as a private company. as long as you're on their property, you follow their rules. discriminating against something that doesn't effect work and cannot be helped by the employee are different to policies of no guns or biscuits

[Busyman]

A black face is not an article of clothing unless it's a mask.

Just don't wear the mask to work.

Otherwise it's against the law......and one's bleach their face white or any other color.
Tbh, most folk don't have black faces. I have a caramel complexion.
Just don't wear the red socks, let your boss tell you what do, even if it has nowt to do with doing your job.

Like having a gun in your car.
Dress codes have alot to do with certain jobs.

I remember Tommy Haas having to change his shirt from a cut-off to a short-sleeved shirt in a tennis match.

[GepperRankins]

A black face is not an article of clothing unless it's a mask.

Just don't wear the mask to work.

Otherwise it's against the law......and one's bleach their face white or any other color.
Tbh, most folk don't have black faces. I have a caramel complexion.
Just don't wear the red socks, let your boss tell you what do, even if it has nowt to do with doing your job.

Like having a gun in your car.
i agree

[Busyman]

that's racist and the victim can't do anything about it.
So you can't abstract either, OK. (Which specific race is black of face, btw and why is it racist to mention the colour of their face.)

Let's keep it simple then. If we have to work on a basic level.

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid it's employees to bear arms.
I have a better one.

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?

[JPaul]

it's a self given right as a private company. as long as you're on their property, you follow their rules. discriminating against something that doesn't effect work and cannot be helped by the employee are different to policies of no guns or biscuits
Pish.

"self given right" ... "as long as you're on their property, you follow their rules." maybe in the 19th century.

We did away with that, at least Mr Hardie did, long long ago. That's what the struggle was all about. Don't they teach that any more.

[JPaul]

So you can't abstract either, OK. (Which specific race is black of face, btw and why is it racist to mention the colour of their face.)

Let's keep it simple then. If we have to work on a basic level.

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid it's employees to bear arms.
I have a better one.

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?
That depends on what the company does.

[GepperRankins]

where would they teach it? in schools? where uniforms are neccessery. phones, cd players, make up, jewelry and many other things are banned. students must go into lessons at set times and if they don't their parents go to jail

[Busyman]

I have a better one.

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?
That depends on what the company does.
Why?

[JPaul]

where would they teach it? in schools? where uniforms are neccessery. phones, cd players, make up, jewelry and many other things are banned. students must go into lessons at set times and if they don't their parents go to jail
When did parents go to jail because their children were late for a class.

How often does that happen.

[GepperRankins]

where would they teach it? in schools? where uniforms are neccessery. phones, cd players, make up, jewelry and many other things are banned. students must go into lessons at set times and if they don't their parents go to jail
When did parents go to jail because their children were late for a class.

How often does that happen.
haha. you don't even know

[JPaul]

That depends on what the company does.
Why?
Because there may be a specific law regarding what employess may do.

[JPaul]

When did parents go to jail because their children were late for a class.

How often does that happen.
haha. you don't even know
Fair point, I can't argue with imbecility.

Fortunately I seldom, if ever feel compelled to.

[lynx]

JP, you complain about things that went out with the 19C, yet you seem to think that restrictive union practices which we disposed of over 20 years ago are still in effect. Hardie is dead and buried, but I doubt if he would have agreed with the distorted views put forward in his name.

You may not have noticed, but this is the 21st Century. Companies have rights too. It's their land, if they say that certain items aren't allowed on their property, it is their right to say so.

I can't help thinking that the NRA are on a loser with this one.

[JPaul]

restrictive union practices which we disposed of over 20 years ago are still in effect.
Really, who are "we", just so I know who I am talking to.

Hardie is indeed dead and buried, however some of us "left wingers" still hold certain things to be true. That the wealth belongs to those who make it, not to those who "own" the land, thro' inheritance.

Companies cannot make policies which over-ride the laws made by an elected Government. That's how democracy works, one man, one vote. That's what "we" fought and died for. "You" couldn't dispose of it then and you can't dispose of it now.

[Busyman]

Why?
Because there may be a specific law regarding what employess may do.
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=1107171&postcount=44

[lynx]

restrictive union practices which we disposed of over 20 years ago are still in effect.
Really, who are "we", just so I know who I am talking to.

Hardie is indeed dead and buried, however some of us "left wingers" still hold certain things to be true. That the wealth belongs to those who make it, not to those who "own" the land, thro' inheritance.

Companies cannot make policies which over-ride the laws made by an elected Government. That's how democracy works, one man, one vote. That's what "we" fought and died for. "You" couldn't dispose of it then and you can't dispose of it now.
Ah, you haven't noticed.

Communism is dead. Like the minds of those who believed in it.

[vidcc]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

Your co-worker is acting strangely again, and the NRA wants him to have his gun close by.

It was only a matter of time. The National Rifle Association thinks every employer in America should be required by law to allow workers to bring guns into the workplace, and the group's leader announced this week it will work to get state laws passed to ensure it. It doesn't matter if there are day care centers in the office, or hazardous materials: Workers, the group says, should have a Constitutional right to be armed. And they've added a boycott campaign of one business that has argued in court in the state of Oklahoma that it should have the right to ban firearms from the workplace.

"Is there no end to this?" asked Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "In state after state, the NRA has lobbied for the right to bring hidden, loaded handguns into churches, schools and bars -- and now even chemical plants. Is there any place in America where we shouldn't allow firearms?"

Specifically, the NRA has targeted petroleum company ConocoPhillips. A press release says the NRA will "spare no effort or expense ... Across the country, we're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights," NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said.

Is a company that prohibits guns in the workplace anti-gun? That's ridiculous. Companies bar guns from the workplace to protect the safety of workers and customers, to keep control over the security of their premises, and to prohibit behavior by potentially dangerous employees who threaten or intimidate other employees.

"America has seen terrible, deadly incidents arise when disturbed individuals bring guns into the office," Barnes said. "It is simply common sense that when a manager is faced with a situation where a troubled individual is showing the warning signs of danger, that manager should have the right, on private property, to make it clear that the firearms should be left home. The NRA says this is about individual rights, and we agree: It's about the individual rights of the majority of the individuals at work to have some level of assurance that they won't be shot."

Summaries of a few of the many incidents of workplace violence involving firearms follow.

-- At a Lockheed Martin assembly plant in Meridian, Miss. on July 9, 2003, "a white factory worker described as a menacing racist went on a murderous rampage, shooting four blacks and one white dead before killing himself. Dozens of employees at the aircraft parts plant frantically ran for cover after the gunman, dressed in a black T-shirt and camouflage pants, opened fire with a shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle during a morning break." Nine others were injured, including one critically, in the United States' deadliest workplace shooting in 2 1/2 years. "Authorities identified the shooter as Doug Williams, a man some employees described as a 'racist' who didn't like blacks. 'When I first heard about it, he was the first thing that came to my mind,' said Jim Payton, a retired plant employee who worked with Williams for about a year. He said Williams had talked about wanting to kill people. 'I'm capable of doing it,' Payton quoted Williams as saying." (Quoted material from the Associated Press.)

-- In Kansas City in July of last year, a 21-year-old worker at a meatpacking plant killed five people and wounded two others before killing himself. "Elijah Brown's co-workers always had a hard time making sense of him," MSNBC reported. "He paced, he talked to himself, he got bothered over teasing that wouldn't faze other people ... Police did not offer a motive for Friday's 10-minute rampage, but said there appeared to be nothing random about the killings at the Kansas City, Kan., ConAgra Foods Inc. plant. They said he passed by some co-workers, telling them, 'You haven't done anything to me, so you can go.' 'This person acted with purpose, he knew exactly what he was doing,' Police Chief Ron Miller said."

-- In July 2003, a Jefferson City, Mo., factory worker "was close to being fired for missing work too much before he pulled a gun in the middle of the plant floor and killed three co-workers, authorities said. Jonathon Russell, 25, later committed suicide in a gun battle with police outside the police station, investigators said. Investigators said he may have targeted certain people in the rampage, which followed a shift change at the industrial-radiator factory late Tuesday. Police said Russell had been accumulating work demerits stemming from his absences at Modine Manufacturing Co. and was facing the possible breakup of a romantic relationship. Two co-workers died along the manufacturing line where Russell had worked for two years. A supervisor, shot 50 feet away, died on the way to the hospital. Five other employees were wounded; their conditions ranged from good to critical." (Associated Press.)


source (http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20050802/pl_usnw/gun_lobby_endangers_workers_in_its_push_to_force_businesses_to_allow_guns_in_the_workplace__says_brady_campaign_to_prevent_gun_)

There were 164 workplace shootings in the United States between 1994 and 2003, in which 290 people were killed and 161 were wounded.

source (pdf) (http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/workshootings.pdf)

[GepperRankins]

JP, you complain about things that went out with the 19C, yet you seem to think that restrictive union practices which we disposed of over 20 years ago are still in effect. Hardie is dead and buried, but I doubt if he would have agreed with the distorted views put forward in his name.

You may not have noticed, but this is the 21st Century. Companies have rights too. It's their land, if they say that certain items aren't allowed on their property, it is their right to say so.

I can't help thinking that the NRA are on a loser with this one.

Ah, I am well and truly torn...

My gut tells me to agree with JP 'cuz lynx's head is normally in his wazoo, and he will go to any lengths to disagree with me, but alas, the hat is on the other foot, here.

The employer makes the rules, period, and I must agree with lynx.

May God forgive me.
and me http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/PWNED.gif

[whypikonme]

It's disingenuous to draw parallels between Keir Hardie and this company rule, as Lynx asserted, Hardie would have no sympathy for your view, he had far more pressing things on his mind.

At the age of eight Hardie became a baker's delivery boy. Hardie had to work for twelve and a half hours a day and for his labours received 3s. 6d. a week. With his step-father unemployed, and his mother pregnant, Hardie was the only wage-earner in the family.

In January, 1866, Hardie's younger brother was dying and after spending most of the night looking after him, he arrived late for work. His employer sacked him and also fined him a week's wages as a punishment for his unpunctuality.

Hardie argued that people earning more than a £1,000 a year should pay a higher rate of income-tax. Hardie believed this extra revenue should be used to provide old age pensions and free schooling for the working class.
Worrying about guns in car parks, l don't think so!

[RPerry]

I wouldn't even bother agruing what is, and what isn't in the company rules. Its not like they are trying to be a dictatorship. This particualr rule is for the saftey of everyone. Shootings in the workplace seem to have been on the rise, and its the managements obligation to keep the workers safe :blink:

Really though, I have not worked for anyone who searches cars, so if someone is terminated for having one, they were stupid and were seen with it. Also, don't know about yours, but my workplace doesn't have metal detectors either, so in reality, there is nothing to prevent someone walking into the building with one :huh: This is one of those policy's that is meant to make people feel safe, but actually doesn't do a thing :dry:

[JPaul]

So the position we have arrived at is, a company makes a rule you follow it. Fit in or fuck off as they say.

Our American colleagues hold their employers "rights" to be more important than their own constitutional rights, fair enough.

So your employer bans you from having a gun, in your locked car, in their car park and you say fair enough. It's your car park, which means you can make any rule you wish and if I fail to agree with this it's OK to sack me.

Can you not extrapolate what this means. That whilst on company time / property they own you, that you are a slave. Whether the rule relates to your job or not. You have guns in your home because you are big bad dudes, but teacher says don't bring toys to school and your reply is "ok, sorry miss". The land of the brave and the home of the free, my arse.

[GepperRankins]

So the position we have arrived at is, a company makes a rule you follow it. Fit in or fuck off as they say.

Our American colleagues hold their employers "rights" to be more important than their own constitutional rights, fair enough.

So your employer bans you from having a gun, in your locked car, in their car park and you say fair enough. It's your car park, which means you can make any rule you wish and if I fail to agree with this it's OK to sack me.

Can you not extrapolate what this means. That whilst on company time / property they own you, that you are a slave. Whether the rule relates to your job or not. You have guns in your home because you are big bad dudes, but teacher says don't bring toys to school and your reply is "ok, sorry miss". The land of the brave and the home of the free, my arse.
you're not a slave. you aren't forced to work there

[JPaul]

So the position we have arrived at is, a company makes a rule you follow it. Fit in or fuck off as they say.

Our American colleagues hold their employers "rights" to be more important than their own constitutional rights, fair enough.

So your employer bans you from having a gun, in your locked car, in their car park and you say fair enough. It's your car park, which means you can make any rule you wish and if I fail to agree with this it's OK to sack me.

Can you not extrapolate what this means. That whilst on company time / property they own you, that you are a slave. Whether the rule relates to your job or not. You have guns in your home because you are big bad dudes, but teacher says don't bring toys to school and your reply is "ok, sorry miss". The land of the brave and the home of the free, my arse.
you're not a slave. you aren't forced to work there

Please look up hyperbole.

The point is that citizens of the USA are saying that employers "rights" outweigh their own constitutional rights. Which I find laughable.

An employer should have the right to make rules about anything relating to your ability to do the job, for which they pay you and nothing else. So they can tell you not to come to work drunk, but have no right to tell you what to do whilst on holiday, or what you have in your car (unless it relates in some way to your ability to do your job).

[whypikonme]

Employers have constitutional rights too, and some of them apply to private property, as they do to citizens. As a private citizen you have the right to insist that anyone coming on to your property, by car or any other means, does so without guns. Why should an employer not have the same rights?

[JPaul]

Employers have constitutional rights too, and some of them apply to private property, as they do to citizens. As a private citizen you have the right to insist that anyone coming on to your property, by car or any other means, does so without guns. Why should an employer not have the same rights?
I'm not familiar with the US constitution, could someone show me this part as it would be easier to comment on if I could read it.

[Rat Faced]

I only read the 1st couple of pages so sorry if this has already been said...

JP, stop being an arse.

Guns are a Health & Safety issue and a security issue.

Every company has an obilgation for both, and can be sued if they dont have policies that cover that type of thing.

Camera's, expecially in places with confidential/secure data, are also a security risk, and they have to be banned.


Red Socks are neither... however, many companies have dress codes, and i'd assume socks of such bad taste would be covered :snooty:

[GepperRankins]

Actually, from a practical point-of-view, the rule is aimed at keeping firearms out of the workplace proper, and, as to the other, out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

The current state of things legal, however, dictates that a company have such a guideline as a legal "hook" to indicate at least a minimal attempt at due-diligence in the event of a tragic work-place incident-as has been said in so many quarters in recent years, "image is everything".

This slogan has made some rather regrettable leaps.
i think not wanting your employees shooting each other is about more than just image and i don't think stopping people killing eachother is really a regretable leap

[GepperRankins]

I only read the 1st couple of pages so sorry if this has already been said...

JP, stop being an arse.

Guns are a Health & Safety issue and a security issue.

Every company has an obilgation for both, and can be sued if they dont have policies that cover that type of thing.

Camera's, expecially in places with confidential/secure data, are also a security risk, and they have to be banned.


Red Socks are neither... however, many companies have dress codes, and i'd assume socks of such bad taste would be covered :snooty:
thinking about it. i've never been allowed to wear red socks. hardie must be turning in his grave :cry:

[JPaul]

JP, stop being an arse.

Oh, you misunderstand me, I'm more than happy with the outcome.

Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Apparently can mean "You can have a gun locked in your car, unless your boss says you can't."

Like I said, home of the free my arse. They're deluding themselves.

[Rat Faced]

True, but their delusions do give the rest of the west some levity and humour. Let 'em be ;)

[Busyman]

JP, stop being an arse.

Oh, you misunderstand me, I'm more than happy with the outcome.

Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Apparently can mean "You can have a gun locked in your car, unless your boss says you can't."

Like I said, home of the free my arse. They're deluding themselves.
Riiiight, you still never answered..

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?

I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.

[JPaul]

Oh, you misunderstand me, I'm more than happy with the outcome.

Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Apparently can mean "You can have a gun locked in your car, unless your boss says you can't."

Like I said, home of the free my arse. They're deluding themselves.
Riiiight, you still never answered..

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?

I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.


Perhaps you haven't read the thread.

I was the one arguing that they (companies) shouldn't be able to do it. Other people were saying that it was OK for them to do it.

Why would I answer a question which basically said "please provide evidence to support the case you are against". That's just mad talk.

Ask whypickonhim, who reckons they have a constitutional right. I have asked that someone post such a thing for me to read / consider. So far nothing has appeared.

[vidcc]

Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.




The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.

source (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect11.htm)

[JPaul]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

So you don't have an absolute right to bear arms, like people seem to suggest. However we also need to remember the following, from the same source.


The reader can easily see from the above that there are two (2) opposing approaches to the Second Amendment at work here. These two approaches are a debate over textual interpretation.

1. a collective approach (sometimes called a states' rights or militia-centric approach)

2. an individual approach (sometimes called an individual, fundamental, or personal rights approach)

The collective approach is more consistently favored by the courts, and involves an insistence that the founding fathers clearly intended a "well-regulated militia", not a bunch of individual Americans possessing weapons that could only be used today against their neighbors.

The individual approach is that the amendment guarantees the rights of people, otherwise the founding fathers would have said the rights of states. It is further argued that well-armed individuals can defend themselves better from crime, citing an estimated 2.5 million defensive gun usages (DGU) a year. Gun ownership is a personal freedom because you can determine your own fate, and this right is near the top of the list of fundamental freedoms.

That aside, in essence if the particular State has passed laws to allow the company to make such rules, then pas de problem. He broke the rules, he got sacked.

[Busyman]

Riiiight, you still never answered..

What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?

I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.


Perhaps you haven't read the thread.

I was the one arguing that they (companies) shouldn't be able to do it. Other people were saying that it was OK for them to do it.

Why would I answer a question which basically said "please provide evidence to support the case you are against". That's just mad talk.

Ask whypickonhim, who reckons they have a constitutional right. I have asked that someone post such a thing for me to read / consider. So far nothing has appeared.
Of course I have.

You think a company can't have ANY rules unless it passes legislation.

Also, with your level of thinking the gentlemen should be able bring his gun into the office and keep in his cubicle..........'cause he can bear arms. For that matter he can wear it on his hip.

Also, with your level of thinking, with the right to bear arms, there should be no gun control or guidelines...just the right.

[vidcc]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

So you don't have an absolute right to bear arms, like people seem to suggest. However we also need to remember the following, from the same source.


It is disputed as many things are with regards to liberties and the constitution.

[JPaul]

Riiiight, you still never answered..


I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.


Perhaps you haven't read the thread.

I was the one arguing that they (companies) shouldn't be able to do it. Other people were saying that it was OK for them to do it.

Why would I answer a question which basically said "please provide evidence to support the case you are against". That's just mad talk.

Ask whypickonhim, who reckons they have a constitutional right. I have asked that someone post such a thing for me to read / consider. So far nothing has appeared.
Of course I have.

You think a company can't have ANY rules unless it passes legislation.

Also, with your level of thinking the gentlemen should be able bring his gun into the office and keep in his cubicle..........'cause he can bear arms. For that matter he can wear it on his hip.

Also, with your level of thinking, with the right to bear arms, there should be no gun control or guidelines...just the right.

No.

I think companies can have rules which relate to your ability to do your job. e.g. In some cases that may mean a dress code, in others it wouldn't.

I don't think he should have a gun at all, however I was under the impression that he had an absolute constitutional right to it. I was always given that impression. Now it has been pointed out to me that is not the case.

I therefore think that, if relevant State legislation permits them to have such a rule, then they are entitled to do so. One assumes that it would be a health and safety thing. If he then breaks it, they can sack him and obviously did. I don't see his defence against this.

I was taking part in a discussion on "constitutional right" v "company rules". It transpires there was no such issue, you don't have such a constitutional right. So I re-evaluate based on the new information (which vidcc provided).

[JPaul]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

So you don't have an absolute right to bear arms, like people seem to suggest. However we also need to remember the following, from the same source.


It is disputed as many things are with regards to liberties and the constitution.
Sorry, you're confusing me now.

Didn't you post


The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.

that seems quite clear. Your "right to bear arms" is not protected by your constitution. It's a matter for States, or local Governments to decide.

[vidcc]

It is disputed as many things are with regards to liberties and the constitution.
Sorry, you're confusing me now.

Didn't you post


The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.

that seems quite clear. Your "right to bear arms" is not protected by your constitution. It's a matter for States, or local Governments to decide.

It "seems" that way to me as well however not all agree.

your quote highlighted that there was disputed interpretation. The paragraph after your quote highlights this



Individual rights advocates, like the NRA, interpret the word "people" to mean citizens as individuals. Collective right advocates, like the HCI, interpret the word "people" to mean the collective body, as in the American people. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by individual rights advocates to mean the retention of personal firearms in the home, the free carrying of them elsewhere, and learning how to handle them. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by collective right advocates in the military sense that soldiers "bear" arms, civilians "carry" them, and society doesn't need citizen-soldiers since we have arsenals and public barracks in the form of police. The word "arms" is interpreted by individual rights advocates as anything suitable for militia or military purposes (the insurrectionist argument). The word "arms" is interpreted by collective right advocates as weapons suitable for hunting or self defense only. Each side seems to pick and choose whatever interpretive approach suits their purposes, but these are the most common interpretations. Hardy (1986) presents a nice word-by-word breakdown of the Second Amendment in terms of collective v. individual approaches, and argues for a hybrid, or dual purpose, approach
However the constitution is not just about guns and this case is a question of can you have your legally owned guns on private property and can a company dismiss you for breaking company policy. A policy that employees would have to sign agreement to.

In this case it isn't about the ability to do ones job. It is about safety. Anyone that believes a gun kept in a car is "secured" in my mind is being a little naive. I think it takes longer to blow ones nose than it does to gain access to a car. And there have been a few cases where people "arm up" in the heat of the moment.

Another part is common sense. It isn't impossible to park elsewhere if you feel you must have that gun in your car.

[JPaul]

Sorry, I'm causing confusion.

If the state in question has laws which allow the company to have such a ban.

If the company has the ban in force.

If he knowingly broke the ban.

If it's a sackable matter.

Then they have every right to sack him.

Based on what the link you provided shows, it's a "no brainer".

The important issue is whether the laws of the state allow this.

If however people are arguing that he did in fact have a constitutional right to own / bear the weapon but that the company was still entitled to sack him, then they are arguing that State law / company policy is more important than your constitution.

Which is what I find to be strange, particularly as I always thought you chaps held the constitution to be sacrosanct.

[vidcc]

Gun laws (which are amazingly inconsistent) and company policy are two separate things and even if the state allows the actual carrying of arms that doesn't mean you can carry them everywhere. Government buildings and private land are examples.
As I said the constitution isn't just about guns. It covers many freedoms and although one may have a certain freedom that doesn't mean that freedom overrides another's different freedom.

Any sensible gun owner respects this and I think it a reasonable assumption that one that doesn't perhaps isn't the sort of person that one would be happy to have a gun.

[Busyman]

Sorry, I'm causing confusion.

If the state in question has laws which allow the company to have such a ban.

If the company has the ban in force.

If he knowingly broke the ban.

If it's a sackable matter.

Then they have every right to sack him.

Based on what the link you provided shows, it's a "no brainer".

The important issue is whether the laws of the state allow this.

If however people are arguing that he did in fact have a constitutional right to own / bear the weapon but that the company was still entitled to sack him, then they are arguing that State law / company policy is more important than your constitution.

Which is what I find to be strange, particularly as I always thought you chaps held the constitution to be sacrosanct.
Law in general is but it isn't absolute or else we wouldn't need it interpreted.

Again, this fella could decide to bring the gun into the office 'cause the Constitution made no distinction.

I could bring a gun into AAFB. It's my right.

[JPaul]

Sorry, I don't understand AAFB.

So, do you have a constitutional right to have a gun. Or can that not be answered.

[Busyman]

Sorry, I don't understand AAFB.

So, do you have a constitutional right to have a gun.
Sorry, Andrew Air Force Base.

and yes. The fella in the article can still have a gun.

[JPaul]

Sorry, I don't understand AAFB.

So, do you have a constitutional right to have a gun.
Sorry, Andrew Air Force Base.

and yes. The fella in the article can still have a gun.
Thanks for the AAFB.

Re the next part, I didn't mean him specifically.

Do citizens of the USA have a constitutional right, under the second amendment to your constitution, to have a gun.

[vidcc]

So, do you have a constitutional right to have a gun. Or can that not be answered.

Generally speaking you have the right to have a gun. There are exceptions to this and various laws controlling ownership. Not everyone has that right and it depends on which state one is in as to who can or cannot have a gun and in some places what kind of arms.
Groups like the NRA are extreme and believe in unrestricted gun ownership and gun carrying. They are trying to force a company to allow guns on their property by means of a product boycott.

Americans do hold the constitution sacred. The problem is that not everyone interprets it the same way.

[Busyman]

Sorry, Andrew Air Force Base.

and yes. The fella in the article can still have a gun.
Thanks for the AAFB.

Re the next part, I didn't mean him specifically.

Do citizens of the USA have a constitutional right, under the second amendment to your constitution, to have a gun.
Already answered.

[JPaul]

So, do you have a constitutional right to have a gun. Or can that not be answered.

Generally speaking you have the right to have a gun. There are exceptions to this and various laws controlling ownership. Not everyone has that right and it depends on which state one is in as to who can or cannot have a gun and in some places what kind of arms.
Groups like the NRA are extreme and believe in unrestricted gun ownership and gun carrying. They are trying to force a company to allow guns on their property by means of a product boycott.

Americans do hold the constitution sacred. The problem is that not everyone interprets it the same way.

I'm only really interested in how the Courts interpret it. As we are discussing a matter of law.

So, if I understand you right, with regard to the specific issue of gun ownership, not the Constitution as a whole..

All else being equal a person may have the right to own a gun in one State. However if they were to move to another State, then they may not have the same right.

Which means that, for this specific issue, the States interpret the meaning of the Constitution and it therefore varies from State to State.

[vidcc]

I'm only really interested in how the Courts interpret it. As we are discussing a matter of law.
Ok I shall re-word it...not every justice interprets the constitution in the same way and there will always be people disputing the rulings of the court.

[Rat Faced]

Dont the bears get a bit pissed off?

Whats wrong with your own arms?

[JPaul]

I'm only really interested in how the Courts interpret it. As we are discussing a matter of law.
Ok I shall re-word it...not every justice interprets the constitution in the same way and there will always be people disputing the rulings of the court.
Gotcha.

When you say justices, are you referring to the Supreme Court. As I understand it the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.